Skip to main content

About your Search

20130124
20130201
STATION
LANGUAGE
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
CSPAN
Feb 1, 2013 1:00am EST
that hezbollah must renounce terrorism and accept israel to exist as a jewish homeland, respect the borders and protect the borders. i made that clear. >> ok. later on in the same speech, you keded the question -- you lasas -- referred to the fact that we really need to develop peace in the middle east. and you ask the question who guarantees this piece? if we expect israel to pull back to their pre-1967 borders, who guarantees that peace? does this reflect sentiment on your part that that is a legitimate way of solving the peace process, bringing about peace in the middle east, by asking israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 borders? >> no, not at all. what i said was who guarantees the security of israel's borders? israel's borders must be secure. that is part of the fundamental of the core principles of 2006. in fact, you made resolutions that is paramount, the guarantee of the security of israel and its borders. >> i've understand that part of the question of how we bring that peace. but another part of the questions started from the premise that israel would be withdrawing to its
CSPAN
Jan 31, 2013 9:30am EST
person and nuclear weapon capability and employe terrorist proxies including hamas and hezbollah. senator hagel has been an outspoken supporter of nuclear disarmament and global 0 movement. we are very sensitive to that. the president has said many times that he wants a nuclear- free world, and i know that senator hagel is right there with him, but and a time when north korea's belligerent actions threaten our allies with nuclear capabilities, and the security of our own nation and that of our allies, why would we want to unilaterally disarm ourselves of nuclear capability? agelate, however, senator heg has expressed views in meetings with senate colleagues and i have been informed that they are glaringly at odds with long-held positions, but italy regarding israel, iran, and our nuclear -- particularly regarding israel, iran, and our nuclear arsenal. this willingness to walk back his positions, possibly for the sake of political expediency on input and issues, is deeply troubling, and sends a concerning message to our allies and adversaries alike. though i respect senator hagel,
CSPAN
Feb 1, 2013 6:00am EST
you believe iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and provides support to hezbollah and hamas? >> yes, and i am on the record a number of times saying that. >> do you support sanctions against iran? >> yes. >> do you believe the allied states should unilaterally eliminate its nuclear arsenal? >> no. >> do you agree with henry kissinger, george shultz, when they said "the four of us have come together in a non-partisan effort deeply committed to building support for a global effort to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons, to prevent their spread into potentially dangerous hands, and ultimately to end them as a threat to the world. we remain committed to working toward this vision and advancing the steps essential to achieve this goal." do you agree with those for bipartisan national leaders in the area of national security and foreign policy? >> yes. >> i wanted to take a few minutes to talk about some of the things we talked about in my office and some people are saying here she goes. the audit ability of the defense department. i know you want to hold people accountable. i don't think
CSPAN
Jan 25, 2013 2:00pm EST
terrorist organization or for hezbollah to be designated a terrorist organization. and has accused people of being a jewish lobby. i think he's not a good candidate. is not a very distinguished candidates for secretary of defense. he is not of the stature of leon panetta or bob gates or dick cheney or any of the people will ever been secretary of defense over the years. many of them are democrats. there are people in the democratic party who served from the clinton defense department to the obama defense department with management experience, which will be awfully important as there are budget constraints. he said that we should not be threatening the use of force. i don't know why the president selected chuck hagel. maybe he likes him personally. he was a mentor to him when he was a senator. it is really a mistake. it's not bipartisan. i think t it think too late. there's a low chance that chuck hagel will be defeated. a huge majority of republicans will oppose him. the question is what democrats will do. many democrats are asking, aren't there democratic could have appointed? hos
CSPAN
Jan 31, 2013 8:00pm EST
proxies including hamas and hezbollah. senator hagel has been an outspoken supporter of nuclear disarmament and global zero movement. we are very sensitive to that. the president has said many times that he wants a nuclear- free world, and i know that senator hagel is right there with him, but and a time when north korea's belligerent actions threaten our allies with nuclear capabilities, and the security of our own nation and that of our allies, why would we want to unilaterally disarm ourselves of nuclear capability? of late, however, senator hagel has expressed views in meetings with senate colleagues and i have been informed that they are glaringly at odds with long- held positions, particularly regarding israel, iran, and our nuclear arsenal. this willingness to walk back his positions, possibly for the sake of political expediency on input and issues, is deeply troubling, and sends a concerning message to our allies and adversaries alike. though i respect senator hagel, his record demonstrates that he would be a staunch advocate for the continuation of the misguided polici
CSPAN
Jan 31, 2013 12:00pm EST
? >> yes, and by the way i have said on the record many times that hezbollah and hamas are terrorist groups, and i have said many times on the record that iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. i am committed to that. , for my last minute, with regard to afghanistan, we have heard your views, and you did not give a specific statement about how many, but will you in your capacity advises the president bush be drawing down trips sooner rather than later? >> i think he has made that pretty clear, that he wants to do that, and if i am confirmed, i will need to better understand all the dimensions of this. i do not know all those dimensions. i think there is little question -- and i support completely -- where the president wants to go completely in afghanistan, and his commitment to on wind that war. as we have said, there should be, there will be. he noted he will enforce a new policy, a new relationship based on limited objectives for our troops there, and i support that. >> my last question, that i will submit, obviously, the personnel of military is our most important asset, and when
CSPAN
Jan 31, 2013 5:00pm EST
, hezbollah, terrorists. that is why "the washington post" described your views near the fringe of the senate. that raises questions about you suitability to serve as the secretary of defense. in my view, having a secretary of defense who is not viewed as supporting credible strong military action makes it more likely that the united states will be drawn into military conflict. i think that would be an unfortunate outcome. thank you. >> thank you, senator cruz. that ends the second round. if you want an opportunity to comment on that, if not i will ask you other questions. in reaction to one of the things that you said, it doesn't matter what i believe -- it does matter. i think what you were pointing out that unfortunately, is what the president believes. i think that is what you were aiming at. >> that is exactly what i was aiming at and that is what i meant to say. thank you. >> i'm going to ask you the standard questions that i've delayed and these are just questions that we ask of every nominee. would you adhere the applications in regard to conflicts of interest? >> yes. >> have
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7